Writ petition verification requires proven authorisation; a mere letter cannot replace personal signature without a sworn power or affidavit.

A writ petition under Article 226 must be signed and verified by the petitioners, and substitution by another person is permitted only on proof of due authorisation through a reliable, legally recognised mode. A mere letter of authorisation is insufficient because it is neither sworn nor attested in the manner required by the procedural scheme governing writ petitions. The authority to act for non-signing petitioners must ordinarily be shown by a power of attorney or by an affidavit sworn by those petitioners before a recognised attesting authority, stating their inability to sign and verify personally and authorising representation. The affidavit of the signatory acting for others does not satisfy this requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a writ petition under Article 226, a party who does not personally sign and verify the petition may be represented by another person on the basis of a mere letter of authorisation, or whether due authorisation must be proved by a power of attorney or a sworn affidavit.

Analysis: Rule 3(a) required writ petitions to be signed and verified in the manner provided for pleadings under Order 6, Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression "duly authorised" was held to require reliable proof of authority, because the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is a personal remedy and the Court must be satisfied that the petitioners are truly aggrieved persons. The Court relied on the surrounding procedural scheme in the Writ Petition Rules, the Appellate Side Rules, and the Civil Rules of Practice, all of which insist on certified execution, sworn verification, or attestation before recognised officers. A mere authorisation letter was found insufficient because it is neither a sworn statement nor attested in a legally recognised manner. The Court also held that an affidavit by the very person who signs and verifies on behalf of others does not satisfy the requirement; the affidavit must come from the parties who themselves are not signing and verifying.

Conclusion: A mere letter of authorisation is not enough. If some petitioners do not personally sign and verify a writ petition, due authorisation must be proved by a power of attorney or by an affidavit sworn by those petitioners before a legally recognised attesting authority, stating their inability to sign and verify personally and authorising another person to do so.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by insisting on formal proof of authority for representation in writ petitions, and the objection to the manner of verification was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a writ petition is required to be signed and verified by the petitioners, substituted signature by another person is permissible only on proof of due authorisation through a recognised and reliable mode, ordinarily a power of attorney or a sworn affidavit by the non-signing parties.

---